Euthanasia is the ending of life of another person at their request. Passive euthanasia refers to the withholding of treatment even if it is known the person is likely to die as a result. Active euthanasia refers to the practice in which a lethal intervention (e.g. a lethal injection) results in death. In my opinion euthanasia is morally and ethically wrong (Margaret, 1998). In this essay I will start off by examining whether or not voluntary, active euthanasia is morally permissible and then secondly I will examine whether or not it should be allowed to be legally practiced.
I will start off by examining two arguments against the morality of euthanasia and then three arguments for the morality of euthanasia. Gay-Williams feels that active euthanasia is morally wrong. He believes that the idea of euthanasia “is slowly gaining acceptance within our society” (Dowbiggin, 2003). To prove his point that euthanasia is wrong, Gay-Williams uses three main arguments to argue against the morality of euthanasia. Only one of these arguments I shall discuss in this essay. The Argument of Nature goes like this (1) “every human being has a natural inclination to continue living” (Dowbiggin, 2003). And (2) “euthanasia does violence to this natural goal of survival” (Dowbiggin, 2003) therefore active euthanasia goes against our best interests and is also therefore deemed wrong. This is not a bad argument against euthanasia. Basically what Gay-Williams is trying to get at here is that euthanasia is wrong because it is unnatural.
There is however a problem with this argument and the problem is with the first premise. The first premise states that we have a natural inclination to live and even though this may be true it is incomplete. Not only do people have a natural inclination to live they also have a natural inclination to.......................
